To add on, there is nothing fundamentally different about ERA and FIP. Both are simply run estimators. ERA gives credit to everything that happens while the pitcher is on the mound (except, weirdly, for errors), while FIP gives credit to everything except for performance on BIP and timing.

It turns out that pitchers have less control over timing and performance on BIP than they do other stats, but it’s definitely not the 0% to 100% number that FIP does.

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/working-title

FIP is simply an approximation of how a pitcher would have pitched if luck was taken out of the equation, it’s certainly not the final word. Pavano’s FIP suggests that he pitched at a 4.00 ERA level, however, his ERA suggests that he pitched much worse. FIP is more predictive than ERA in a small sample size; however, it’s not unequivocally better. The fact that his ERA is a 5.10 suggests that he pitched worse than FIP estimates, and we should weigh each of them when evaluating his season.

Besides, that’s only one seasons worth of data. Pavano’s 34 and hasn’t pitched a full season since 2004. We should expect some regression, as well as significant risk of injury.

I agree that a strength of the rotation is that it is balanced. Particularly if one pitcher gets injured, his “clone” can step in.

However, a 5-man rotation of 3/3/3/3/3 (WAR) nets a 15 WAR performance. Likewise, a 5/4/3/2/1 (WAR) rotation also nets a 15 WAR performance.

The pro is depth, the con is that in the playoffs the rotation is trimmed to a “3-man” rotation with the Ace and #2 getting more starts, so the “top heavy” rotation has the advantage in the playoffs. Given who the Twins will likely face in the playoffs, that seems like a realistic description of the possible scenario.

The Twins do the best they can with what they have, and I have a lot of respect for how the Twins go about it.

[1] a high ERA is not good.
[2] A low BA for a non-power hitter is not good.

One would need to dig deeper obviously, but there is also a knee-jerk reaction to anything including the acronyms of ERA, RBI, BA, etc.

Those traditional stats are just one piece of evaluating a player’s performance. They are not the complete picture, but neither are they meaningless.

Pitcher’s generally have a FIP that is reasonably close to their ERA, with Nolasco’s 2009 being a rare occurrence. Likewise, guys that get on base a lot generally do not have really low BA’s.

There’s no need to jump down someone’s throat for using basic metrics, when an opportunity to teach them about advanced metrics goes wasted. Very few of us are really contributing to the metric’s community in a highly intellectual way. Most of us are just using another’s work (i.e., advanced metrics) to evaluate players using the same methodology everyone else uses (look at the the metric, compare it to another player or league average). The difference is in the selection of the metric that one understands better or is more familiar with. We don’t want people to ignore the message because of the messenger.

ALL of us used ERA and BA as some of our primary evaluation tools before someone else introduced us to a more accurate metric.

When deciding whether to look it up and compile the data, I evaluated …

[1] How much interest I had in the issue.
[2] How much time I had to invest.
[3] Whether the data would make a difference or whether people would just to continue to believe whatever they believe, regardless of what the data suggested.

I ended up with “No” as an answer.

I think the data you posted shows that “No” the Twins do not have a rotation that would be described as “among the best in baseball”.

Looking at the situation with the mindset of each guy “possibly over-performing” is not a reasonable and appropriate way of looking at the situation, IMO.

Regardless, I appreciate the effort. As time provides, I “owe” the community some “leg work” in a future discussion where assertive comments are made without data-based support.

Sometimes it seems people do not like data when it runs counter to their current opinion. I’m the same way, and generally resist, or want to see “more data” or make sure it is being evaluated accurately. But as more and more data is displayed, I either have to understand that my opinion is not data-supported or I need to change my opinion.